Good analysis and good questions...my feeling is no. Does anyone outside this message board really think of 'Symbian?' Google is going down the road that MS did with their Windows OS...distribute a boatload and the 'user experience' be damned. Today's news confirms that's a flawed strategy! Again very thoughtful analysis, Mel!

Thanks. Nokia is trying, with Symbian, to make it relevant again. I don't think it will happen. Especially when you consider that they've effectively written it off by first going to their linux based Meamo, and now to the Nokia/Intel MeeGo (if I spelled those two correctly) for their higher end phones and tablets. That will kill Symbian off in the bettr smartphone race. As MeeGo moves down the line (assuming that IT will be successful), along with Meamo, where does that leave Symbian, and who will want it other than for cheap phones? Eventually, it will disappear.

Thanks. Nokia is trying, with Symbian, to make it relevant again. I don't think it will happen. Especially when you consider that they've effectively written it off by first going to their linux based Meamo, and now to the Nokia/Intel MeeGo (if I spelled those two correctly) for their higher end phones and tablets. That will kill Symbian off in the bettr smartphone race. As MeeGo moves down the line (assuming that IT will be successful), along with Meamo, where does that leave Symbian, and who will want it other than for cheap phones? Eventually, it will disappear.

You're welcome Mel...you obviously know more of the details than i do...but as you say...especially in Tech, it is awfully hard to resurrect yourself once you have 'missed the boat!' As it were. Apple did it...but, long term, MS, Sony, Motorola are in the business of going out of business!

Best!

Edit: Along your line of thinking...I think HP is trying with the acquisition of Palm... which was really a billion dollar investment in Palm's WebOS and maybe an entree into the tablet and mobile phone business. Unlike Dell and Google, which seem to be all over the place.

It's not clear to me how many Android handsets would have to be sold for Google to have the same cash flow as Apple gets from selling one iPhone.

What would that multiple be? Even if it's in the upper single digits, could Google ever achieve that kind of share? And, even if it does, will it simply be a volume play (like PCs) than a value play (like Macs)?

Well, of course, for Google, they only lose money on Android, if we're talking about direct income.

But my feeling about this has been that Google doesn't care. Google makes 95% of its income, both gross and net, from advertising. They aren't, despite what most people think, primarily a search company. That's not their business. They are an Ad placement company. Their search function is just there for the purpose of making money from Ads. The better the search, the more Ads they get.

Now, with the iPhone, Google is put into a bad position. With all the apps out there that bypass the Google search page, people don't get the search results popping up in a new page, with the paid for searches on top, and the paid Ads in the sidebar. If they don't appear, Google doesn't get paid for them. Oops!

With mobile growing at such a torrid pace, it will only be a ways before most people are on the internet through apps on phones, Touches, and tablets. Google's search business is, in the long term, in danger.

This is where Android comes in. With Google having their own platform for apps and search, they can control where those Ads appear, thereby getting paid for them. Giving it away for free increases the chances that manufacturers will use it. Allowing them to screw with it gives them the ability to differentiate themselves from all the other Android players. We know where that leads.

The interesting thing though, is that it's since come out that Google began working on this in 2005, long before Apple came out with their phone, and even longer before they had an app store to derail Google's business. So they were thinking about monopolizing search and Ads well before Apple got involved, though likely that made it even more important for Google to get something out there, even before it was really ready. We can see that by the first OS versions and phones. Not very good.

I think we can pretty much agree on most things here. You're right markets fluctuate over time. What was big, becomes small, and visa versa. Who ever thought that Motorola would drop to such a small marketshare? Ten years ago? No one!

I am not a history afficionado, but when I was exposed to history of nations for a longer period of time, I begun to appreciate the statement:

"Nothing last!"

or its other form:

"This too shall pass..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by melgross

I remember when Samsung had less that a 5% marketshare early in this century when I first bought their i300 color Palmphone. Who thought they would become one of the largest manufacturers?

Yes, I remember the cars from Korea when I was a student in Baltimore. I think, it was called a Kia or something. My housemate was South Korean born in Korea but raised in the US. He was the most perceptive and considerate person I ever met. And that was good because I was just adjusting to America, at the time. He was more gregarious, and through him, our group became more international (not simply other nationals raised in the US).

Among the most impressive were the group coming from Taiwan and later on mainland China. [I was exposed with Chinese in my own country.] Of course, they were more educated, but the way they behaved. if they became the leaders in education, science and industry, I would not be too surprised if they would succeed in transforming their respective countries -- maybe not like the way we want it to be from a Western perspective.

This is one reason why I am surprised when some posters simply view China as autocratic state.

I would not be surprised if China would eventually overtake the US, economically. They may rely on Western technology right now, but like Japan, they will evolve their own local technology. It is not simply cheap and plentiful labor that attract many Western companies to China. In fact, even Western bred Asians (Chinese, Indians, etc.) are going back to their respective countries because some find more opportunities there to practice their training. It goes without saying that it is a bonus to be able help shape your birth country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by melgross

With Apple vs Android, the picture is less clear. After all, Apple is a manufacturer of phones, and Google is a developer of a free OS. Very different. It's possible that at some point, Android will become the most widely used phone OS, but at what cost? Will it become so fractionated that it will no longer become Android in most peoples eyes? With manufacturers putting their own, often not compatible GUIs on their own phones, and giving them names, will people think of these phones as Android phones? Its possible they won't, especially since some of these companies are tarting their own app stores, and many apps may not crossover the lines of one phone to another.

As a consumer, who had to wallow with the choices and lack of support, in a number of "open systems", I prefer the "walled garden" of Apple. I just want to use applications. If Apple can help me discard buggy Apps, and malwares, I have little in wading through poorly scripted Apps. My experience with Wintel hardware becomes an issue when something breakdown, and every one blames the other. Fortunately, for laboratory equipment, we just called the instrument vendor.

The fragmentation because of forking that usually occurs with "Open source" initiative would likely benefit Apple, and the reason why many developers would likely stick with the Apple Apps Store.

I consider the reluctance of Google to immerse into more active coordination of the Android project and its reluctance to invest in the infrastructure (not just the software) as a major stumbling in the development of the Android, as a more effective system, as much as the Apple integrated ecosystem it has built with the iPhone OS. The technology itself evolved from years of in-house design and technology; One Apple enthusiast. for example. traced the roots of the iPad, from generations of "integrated unibody of the screen-processor" starting with the original Mac, to first iMac and the latest iMac iteration. Apple would nnot likely have adopted the "Courier" (folding) form for the iPad, as speculated in early design before the iPad came out. More than likely, it is also the reason why Apple went with the form factor of the iPhone, rather than the more common clam shell used in phones and notebooks and netbooks.

Now, is the lack of more "controlling" approach of Google to its Android initiative be fatal? I would hazard to speculate that it would limit the potential of the OS, but the very nature of the "open source" may help developers in other countries evolve their own version of the Android for local consumption.

This will surely cause fragmentation, but if a local phone manufacturer in China would create one for the vast Chinese market, it is likely to thrive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by melgross

So will a Samsung Android phone be known as an Android phone, or as a BADA phone? Will an HTC Android phone be known as an Android phone, or as a Sense phone, etc? Will Verizon limit Google marketplace sales in favor of it's own store and apps? I don't think we will know that for a couple more years.

The issue as to what OS would be inside a phone would more likely concern mainly the technocrats, developers and carriers. The consumer would be more concerned if the phone addresses his/her needs.

I am not as verse to what Google is doing, but as primary developer, it had a lot of say on what goes on in the Android. For example, the integration of its browsers, Gmail, and relevant cloud computing initiatives. According to Gruber, this is where Apple mobile codmputing is catching up to Google's Android's ecosystem. The iPhone OS mobile computing devices are still tethered to the desktop. My hope is that this will change soon and I speculate that initiatives, like the North Carolina facility, Mobile Me, and some others in Apple research labs may be working towards tis goal.

Well, of course, for Google, they only lose money on Android, if we're talking about direct income.

But my feeling about this has been that Google doesn't care. Google makes 95% of its income, both gross and net, from advertising. They aren't, despite what most people think, primarily a search company. That's not their business. They are an Ad placement company. Their search function is just there for the purpose of making money from Ads. The better the search, the more Ads they get.

Now, with the iPhone, Google is put into a bad position. With all the apps out there that bypass the Google search page, people don't get the search results popping up in a new page, with the paid for searches on top, and the paid Ads in the sidebar. If they don't appear, Google doesn't get paid for them. Oops!

With mobile growing at such a torrid pace, it will only be a ways before most people are on the internet through apps on phones, Touches, and tablets. Google's search business is, in the long term, in danger.

This is where Android comes in. With Google having their own platform for apps and search, they can control where those Ads appear, thereby getting paid for them. Giving it away for free increases the chances that manufacturers will use it. Allowing them to screw with it gives them the ability to differentiate themselves from all the other Android players. We know where that leads.

The interesting thing though, is that it's since come out that Google began working on this in 2005, long before Apple came out with their phone, and even longer before they had an app store to derail Google's business. So they were thinking about monopolizing search and Ads well before Apple got involved, though likely that made it even more important for Google to get something out there, even before it was really ready. We can see that by the first OS versions and phones. Not very good.

Mel, you're correct...Google is all about ad revenue...'pennies per click/view' add up to billions! But consider this...maybe they're not in the ad business? Maybe they are in the 'harvesting' business....get users search/preference info and 'Sell' it!

In all honesty, I did not come up with this idea...it may have been anantksundaram. But it makes sense to me... Coca-Cola is not selling Coke, the soft drink but rather sugar and caffeine, McDonald's is not selling 'food,' but rather 'Fat,' 'sugar' and 'Salt!' And on and on....

I am not a history afficionado, but when I was exposed to history of nations for a longer period of time, I begun to appreciate the statement:

"Nothing last!"

or its other form:

"This too shall pass..."

Yes, I remember the cars from Korea when I was a student in Baltimore. I think, it was called a Kia or something. My housemate was South Korean born in Korea but raised in the US. He was the most perceptive and considerate person I ever met. And that was good because I was just adjusting to America, at the time. He was more gregarious, and through him, our group became more international (not simply other nationals raised in the US).

Among the most impressive were the group coming from Taiwan and later on mainland China. [I was exposed with Chinese in my own country.] Of course, they were more educated, but the way they behaved. if they became the leaders in education, science and industry, I would not be too surprised if they would succeed in transforming their respective countries -- maybe not like the way we want it to be from a Western perspective.

This is one reason why I am surprised when some posters simply view China as autocratic state.

I would not be surprised if China would eventually overtake the US, economically. They may rely on Western technology right now, but like Japan, they will evolve their own local technology. It is not simply cheap and plentiful labor that attract many Western companies to China. In fact, even Western bred Asians (Chinese, Indians, etc.) are going back to their respective countries because some find more opportunities there to practice their training. It goes without saying that it is a bonus to be able help shape your birth country.

As a consumer, who had to wallow with the choices and lack of support, in a number of "open systems", I prefer the "walled garden" of Apple. I just want to use applications. If Apple can help me discard buggy Apps, and malwares, I have little in wading through poorly scripted Apps. My experience with Wintel hardware becomes an issue when something breakdown, and every one blames the other. Fortunately, for laboratory equipment, we just called the instrument vendor.

The fragmentation because of forking that usually occurs with "Open source" initiative would likely benefit Apple, and the reason why many developers would likely stick with the Apple Apps Store.

I consider the reluctance of Google to immerse into more active coordination of the Android project and its reluctance to invest in the infrastructure (not just the software) as a major stumbling in the development of the Android, as a more effective system, as much as the Apple integrated ecosystem it has built with the iPhone OS. The technology itself evolved from years of in-house design and technology; One Apple enthusiast. for example. traced the roots of the iPad, from generations of "integrated unibody of the screen-processor" starting with the original Mac, to first iMac and the latest iMac iteration. Apple would nnot likely have adopted the "Courier" (folding) form for the iPad, as speculated in early design before the iPad came out. More than likely, it is also the reason why Apple went with the form factor of the iPhone, rather than the more common clam shell used in phones and notebooks and netbooks.

Now, is the lack of more "controlling" approach of Google to its Android initiative be fatal? I would hazard to speculate that it would limit the potential of the OS, but the very nature of the "open source" may help developers in other countries evolve their own version of the Android for local consumption.

This will surely cause fragmentation, but if a local phone manufacturer in China would create one for the vast Chinese market, it is likely to thrive.

The issue as to what OS would be inside a phone would more likely concern mainly the technocrats, developers and carriers. The consumer would be more concerned if the phone addresses his/her needs.

I am not as verse to what Google is doing, but as primary developer, it had a lot of say on what goes on in the Android. For example, the integration of its browsers, Gmail, and relevant cloud computing initiatives. According to Gruber, this is where Apple mobile codmputing is catching up to Google's Android's ecosystem. The iPhone OS mobile computing devices are still tethered to the desktop. My hope is that this will change soon and I speculate that initiatives, like the North Carolina facility, Mobile Me, and some others in Apple research labs may be working towards tis goal.

CGC

Very good!

I don't want to get too deeply into politics here, but it seems that the largest State, by number of people (until rapidly expanding India catches up before too long) is mostly interested in keeping a lid on things. It's a good question whether their expansion can continue, or will bust like Japan's did. Top heavy economies tend to do well for a number of years, but the imbalances that are a necessary part of that expansion eventually blow up. Right now, China has a very unbalanced economy. How much longer they can continue with that isn't known.

Why not? They are the largest by that metric. If you mean by number of employees then companies like Foxconn are probably larger. Market Cap is a much better metric then market share. All the market share metrics I see are like comparing the market share of a sub-compact to the market share of a luxury sudan.

It's all semantics.

I think it would have been more appropriate to say that Apple has become the most *valuable* tech company.

Google makes 95% of its income, both gross and net, from advertising. They aren't, despite what most people think, primarily a search company. That's not their business. They are an Ad placement company. Their search function is just there for the purpose of making money from Ads. The better the search, the more Ads they get.

I agree.

However, dependence on ad spending will turn out to be their Achilles heel in the long run. They know it, and that's why they are flailing about for an alternative product-market strategy: a strategy that amounts to throwing lots of things at the wall and hoping that something will stick.

Mel, you're correct...Google is all about ad revenue...'pennies per click/view' add up to billions! But consider this...maybe they're not in the ad business? Maybe they are in the 'harvesting' business....get users search/preference info and 'Sell' it!

In all honesty, I did not come up with this idea...it may have been anantksundaram. But it makes sense to me... Coca-Cola is not selling Coke, the soft drink but rather sugar and caffeine, McDonald's is not selling 'food,' but rather 'Fat,' 'sugar' and 'Salt!' And on and on....

Ps. That word 'harvest' makes my kidneys hurt for some reason!

The "harvesting" business is one that's fairly new for them. First, they needed to do years of it in an ever increasingly sophisticated fashion. Once they got there, the information began to have value. But in a way, this is still part of the advertising business for them. It's just the marketing arm of the ad business. Sell the information to Ad agencies, and companies who would use it toplace targeted Ads on Google's pages.

However, dependence on ad spending will turn out to be their Achilles heel in the long run. They know it, and that's why they are flailing about for an alternative product-market strategy: a strategy that amounts to throwing lots of things at the wall and hoping that something will stick.

That's true. But you notice that almost all of that is free to users. Guess how they get paid?

However, dependence on ad spending will turn out to be their Achilles heel in the long run. They know it, and that's why they are flailing about for an alternative product-market strategy: a strategy that amounts to throwing lots of things at the wall and hoping that something will stick.

Right on. Google is riding a wave right now and 'flailing' is a good description of their business direction!

Let us take a moment to feel for the trolls. Imagine how heart broken they must be. Their only mantra from here on in can be that 'volume' is king. AKA the GM school of economics.

On a serious note this has come a year earlier than I expected and it may well fluctuate with M$ on top again for a while but the over all trend is relentless. Apple haven't even started yet. I stand by my belief we are close to the time when people ask "Do you remember Microsoft?"

People tend to abandon sinking ships so I expect to see the decline of M$ to accelerate in anything in the next two years.

Anyone taking bets on how long Monkey Man will last at M$?

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

The "harvesting" business is one that's fairly new for them. First, they needed to do years of it in an ever increasingly sophisticated fashion. Once they got there, the information began to have value. But in a way, this is still part of the advertising business for them. It's just the marketing arm of the ad business. Sell the information to Ad agencies, and companies who would use it toplace targeted Ads on Google's pages.

Let us take a moment to feel for the trolls. Imagine how heart broken they must be. Their only mantra from here on in can be that 'volume' is king. AKA the GM school of economics.

On a serious note this has come a year earlier than I expected and it may well fluctuate with M$ on top again for a while but the over all trend is relentless. Apple haven't even started yet. I stand by my belief we are close to the time when people ask "Do you remember Microsoft?"

People tend to abandon sinking ships so I expect to see the decline of M$ to accelerate in anything in the next two years.

Anyone taking bets on how long Monkey Man will last at M$?

Oh didgit, You have hit the nail on the head, so to speak. I can't tell you how many times I've heard, 'we are losing losing money on every item we sell...only to hear, that's OK, we'll make it up on volume!' It's such a short sighted business model, as you say, a la GM!

It's the game so many misguided MBA educated CEO's play b/c they don't have any skin in the game! F the original owners of the company, F the shareholders and Pension funds that, have in good faith, invested in the enterprise and F America as long as the CEO gets their MacMansion, golf membership and a blonde xmas tree to hang ornaments on! Ok sorry a little carried away there. At least I didn't wish they would get colon cancer from all the filet mignon they are eating!

My evil twin admits he'd love to see Apple do a hostile take over if only so Apple could; 1. close Flash department and 2. make all Adobe apps Mac only. After they clean the bloody mess those Adobe apps are these days, that is.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

My evil twin admits he'd love to see Apple do a hostile take over if only so Apple could; 1. close Flash department and 2. make all Adobe apps Mac only. After they clean the bloody mess those Adobe apps are these days, that is.

I think it would have been more appropriate to say that Apple has become the most *valuable* tech company.

it's not semantics. You can't interchange terms when largest is being applied to the market cap. Apple's market cap is larger therefore it must be, by definition, the most valuable. There is no ambiguity in the article about what "largest" refers to .

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

You have set the terms of the wager entirely in your favor, 1 free OS with several phone models and manufacturers versus 1 manufacturer's OS and models, and yet you still could possibly lose.

Come on! If you ever initiate a wager, be sure to define the terms to increase your odds. Unless, you aim to lose because you gain more when that happens. You may not have encountered the latter, but there are situations when it serve my purpose.

A decent wager though will consider the art of negotiation. I tried to do that with TechStud, to define the terms of what constituted a failed iPad, but he did not have the balls to stand behind all his blusters. He claimed that a onemillion iPad is not fair (my low ball estimate) for year 2010; but then considered the Kindle a success -- even if Amazon never released sales figures. I assume the latter was the case because the actual quarterly or annual sales of Kindle, might not have been really that spectacular.

Obviously, I low balled the estimate for the iPad wager to increase my chances. I simply considered the applications where the iPad may be applicable for the activites, vocation and businesses that interest me, and I could see the promise of the iPads beyond the usual that many techie-naysayers or even Apple have even begun to explore, or share, at the time. When I searched You Tube, a number of people have even found very creative productive uses for a device that some supposedly computer tech experts(?) considered simply a consuming device.

As it turned out, my early estimates around February was very conservative. Apple iPad sales was around a million in the first month alone, even if sales was delayed, and more so, worldwide. Based from the initial sales, I increased my prediction around 2-3 million iPads for the quarter. It could have been higher I think had there been no production constraints. For the year, my estimate would be around 8-10 million, provided the issue of production ramping has been addressed, and Apple has introduced ithe iPad to the major markets before the holidays.

I expect however that the actual introduction of the iPad to other markets where the iPhone has already been introduced may drag into early next year, especially if other companies do not have a credible counter to the iPad by the holiday season.

It would be crazy however to assume that the IPad was a sure winner. Even Apple was surprised by the reception of the iPad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Realistic

BTW You obviously still don't get it, this is all about profitability not market share.

Actually, in the beginning, that is one thing where solipsism and I agreed. Profitability is the focus of Apple. Read the response of others about what I termed the "20-80" strategy. Others called it "80-20". I quote a response from:

Quote:

Originally Posted by christopher126

Very well said cg...I've heard it described in other ways, too. Profit Margin over Market Share. And I've certainly heard of the '80-20' rule, i.e., 20% of the population drink 80% of the beer! (Question: Who does Budweiser advertise too? Answer: Horses, specifically, Clydesdales!)

And I know although, ~70% of the US economy is driven by the 'consumer,' the top 10% of the US consumers drive 50% of the US economy. But I never thought to think of it as a "20-80" strategy" on the part of Apple. Spot on!

Best

I am not sure what the correct term is used by Harvard Business School. I read an article somewhere that it is the centra; mantra of the business plans.

There is also a potential danger of the high end model. This was proven in the latest worldwide downturn. For example, high end restaurants which obviously cater to the more elite of the population can be very vulnerable. Eating out is not a necessity, and could be one of those that people, even the very rich can do without, if finances become tight. There were a number of "institutions" -- four star restaurants, hotels, and such, in urban areas during the latest downturn. I remember the "Tavern at the Green" n Central Park because my German friend introduced me to it when I visited him in New York. This was true also with the sales of high end consumer products retailers.

In contrast, the resilience, almost recession-proof ability of Apple not only to weather the latest dowturn, but actually even reported record sales and profits was remarkable.

However, what is true for Apple, or the high end business markets need not all apply to all industries.

For example, the reverse strategy is used by companies, like Walmart. The stiff competition among retailers, especially involving day-to-day needs rely on very low profit margin but high product flow (turnover) to generate enough profit. Many chain supermarkets use the same strategy. The same is true with discounters. Some even sell their products at a loss because of buyers tendencies, especially families that bring their kids when they shop. Have you seen all those items near the cashiers section? Kids and others do impulse buying.

Walmart had been the most successful using this strategy because of it clout -- it is the largest retailer in the world. In fact, if there is to be anyone investigated for unfair monopolistic practices, Walmart would be a good candidate. It could simply get preferential prices, simply because of the volume purchases. It could therefore undercut any nearby competirors and still make better profit.

Walmart however goes further, it will force manufacturers to abide by its terms. Otherwise, it will not display the product. One other practice that Walmart supposedly had done was to support new products, but if it becomes very successful with consumers, it then create equivanlent house product.

To view Walmart as all villain is not always a complete picture. For example, Walmart has been a proponent of fighting global warming, conservation and energy conservation. For this reason, it has collaborated with manufacturers to develop concentrated detergent for example. Why? This reduces packaging and disposed plastics that wreak havoc in both land and specially marine life. With concentrates, more products can be transported. Saves both on traspontation costs (labor, repairs, replacements) and energy.

In the case of businesses, like Walmart, greater marketshare is not only desirable but imperative for survival.

Oh didgit, You have hit the nail on the head, so to speak. I can't tell you how many times I've heard, 'we are losing losing money on every item we sell...only to hear, that's OK, we'll make it up on volume!' It's such a short sighted business model, as you say, a la GM!

It's the game so many misguided MBA educated CEO's play b/c they don't have any skin in the game! F the original owners of the company, F the shareholders and Pension funds that, have in good faith, invested in the enterprise and F America as long as the CEO gets their MacMansion, golf membership and a blonde xmas tree to hang ornaments on! Ok sorry a little carried away there. At least I didn't wish they would get colon cancer from all the filet mignon they are eating!

Unfortunately, I have to agree with this post of yours as well. All too often the books are "cooked" to allow bigger benefits for those in charge. With interlocking boards, no one wants to call it out, because it may then happen to them as well.

But this doesn't just happen here. It happens everywhere. Just last week, the richest man in China was put in prison for doing pretty much the same thing. He's lucky he wasn't executed as others have been.

My evil twin admits he'd love to see Apple do a hostile take over if only so Apple could; 1. close Flash department and 2. make all Adobe apps Mac only. After they clean the bloody mess those Adobe apps are these days, that is.

Google wouldn't, unlike Apple, care that Adobe produces software for several platforms. That's the biggest problem for Apple with this deal. Apple would have been better off buying Macromedia when they put themselves on the block. Then they would own Flash.

it's not semantics. You can't interchange terms when largest is being applied to the market cap. Apple's market cap is larger therefore it must be, by definition, the most valuable. There is no ambiguity in the article about what "largest" refers to .

If the market share is the same then I guess apple could be as three times bigger than apple Inc . It is just like you are comparing the market share of LV bag and Nike bag . The market they target is different !!!

Unfortunately, I have to agree with this post of yours as well. All too often the books are "cooked" to allow bigger benefits for those in charge. With interlocking boards, no one wants to call it out, because it may then happen to them as well.

But this doesn't just happen here. It happens everywhere. Just last week, the richest man in China was put in prison for doing pretty much the same thing. He's lucky he wasn't executed as others have been.

Thanks, these next two sentences won't do justice to your main theme but here goes... I read a book about the tech bubble. And basically its main thesis was those on the inside, Directors, venture capitalists, banks, investment houses that effected the IPO's and attorneys made the lion's share of the money... funny that's how the housing bubble has played out too.

I guess what they say is true...all the money invested by the little guy is truly 'dumb money' there for the taking!

Heh! The first time I ever waited in line to get an Apple (or any other) product. Happy I did too!

Even in its first incarnation, it's an amazing device.

When I first told my daughter, the photo major, that Apple was coming out with a tablet, she asked if it would replace her Wacom. Well, I told her that it wasn't that kind of tablet.

But you know, it is! A small company just came out with software (Air Display), an app on the tablet, and software for the computer, that allows the iPad to be used as a second monitor. You can mirror, or extend. What is so amazing about this is that it responds to touch!!! Yes, not everything responds, as would be expected, but much does. I found that with Photoshop (CS5) and the pogo stylus, you can work on the image from the tablet, just as you can from your main screen. If you keep a full image on the main screen, and a smaller window of a magnified section on the iPad, you can work on that. Yes, it's a bit slow, and jerky right now. The software is ver 1.0, and so is the iPad. But that's the speed we had a few years ago on our higher end machines, so I'm not concerned.

The point is; it WORKS!

The iPad is very well worth waiting for. I'm finding more amazing stuff all the time for this. The cynics who say it's only good for consuming content are so very wrong.

Thanks, these next two sentences won't do justice to your main theme but here goes... I read a book about the tech bubble. And basically its main thesis was those on the inside, Directors, venture capitalists, banks, investment houses that effected the IPO's and attorneys made the lion's share of the money... funny that's how the housing bubble has played out too.

I guess what they say is true...all the money invested by the little guy is truly 'dumb money' there for the taking!

Best!

Of course. even those who are supposed to be "sophisticated investors", and for those who don't know, that's an official term, legally, get caught in this. Look at the banks and investment firms who got caught buying those products from Goldman Sachs, that were being sold, without telling the investors in them, on the bet that they would go down in value.

Heh! The first time I ever waited in line to get an Apple (or any other) product. Happy I did too!

Even in its first incarnation, it's an amazing device.

When I first told my daughter, the photo major, that Apple was coming out with a tablet, she asked if it would replace her Wacom. Well, I told her that it wasn't that kind of tablet.

But you know, it is! A small company just came out with software (Air Display), an app on the tablet, and software for the computer, that allows the iPad to be used as a second monitor. You can mirror, or extend. What is so amazing about this is that it responds to touch!!! Yes, not everything responds, as would be expected, but much does. I found that with Photoshop (CS5) and the pogo stylus, you can work on the image from the tablet, just as you can from your main screen. If you keep a full image on the main screen, and a smaller window of a magnified section on the iPad, you can work on that. Yes, it's a bit slow, and jerky right now. The software is ver 1.0, and so is the iPad. But that's the speed we had a few years ago on our higher end machines, so I'm not concerned.

The point is; it WORKS!

The iPad is very well worth waiting for. I'm finding more amazing stuff all the time for this. The cynics who say it's only good for consuming content are so very wrong.

Fascinating! I can sense your exuberance...I made a special trip to a local Best Buy to 'hold and feel' the iPad...and you are so right. It is truly amazing and fantastic. i have a 25 year old daughter and I've turned her on to everything Apple...MacBookPro, iPhone, ApplTV, Apple software, MobileMe, and eventually the iPad when funds allow!

Every time Apple comes out with an new product, she thinks I'm a GENIUS! I tell her I didn't design it, but it doesn't matter. She still thinks I'm great. Thanks Apple and thanks to her mom...finally there's a woman that won't fall out of love with me! It's great!

Fascinating! I can sense your exuberance...I made a special trip to a local Best Buy to 'hold and feel' the iPad...and you are so right. It is truly amazing and fantastic. i have a 25 year old daughter and I've turned her on to everything Apple...MacBookPro, iPhone, ApplTV, Apple software, MobileMe, and eventually the iPad when funds allow!

Every time Apple comes out with an new product, she thinks I'm a GENIUS! I tell her I didn't design it, but it doesn't matter. She still thinks I'm great. Thanks Apple and thanks to her mom...I finally there's a woman that won't fall out of love with me! It's great!

I know it's so corny to say that Jobs was right, and that it is magical. But it is!

Some people want to focus on what it doesn't (yet) do, or on what it doesn't do as well as we would like. But that really doesn't matter. What it does do, is pretty amazing. Really, sitting down and going on the internet with this as a much more absorbing experience that would be expected. Using a finger here is liberating. It really is.

The screen size, as Goldilocks would say; "It's just right." smaller, and there's not enough reason to use it the way you can. Bigger would be too clumsy and too heavy.

There was a time we were discussing what Apple might come out with in a tablet, and many of us were saying that we wanted a 7" screen, not much bigger than the one from the Newton, so we could keep it on our belt. But, I must admit, this is much more usable.